Willamette Industries, Inc. - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
          1033).  In Masser, the taxpayer operated an interstate trucking             
          business from two proximately positioned pieces of business                 
          realty that were used as part of a single economic unit.  One of            
          the properties was subject to imminent condemnation, but the                
          taxpayer sold both parcels.  In that circumstance, we held that             
          both pieces of realty were involuntarily converted and the gain             
          from both could be deferred.                                                
               Those cases reveal two general elements as being necessary             
          to qualify for deferral of gain under section 1033.  First, a               
          taxpayer’s property must be involuntarily damaged, and second the           
          property must no longer be available for the taxpayer’s intended            
          business purposes for the property.                                         
               The Commissioner issued a revenue ruling that specifically             
          focused on whether gain from the sale of trees damaged by a                 
          hurricane qualified under section 1033.  In that ruling it was              
          held that the gain on sale of uprooted trees was “voluntary” and,           
          in addition, that there was no direct conversion into money in              
          the circumstances expressed in the ruling.  See Rev. Rul. 72-372,           
          1972-2 C.B. 471.  The principal rationale for the holding of Rev.           
          Rul. 72-372, supra, was that the hurricane did not cause the                
          conversion of the trees into cash or other property directly                
          resulting in gain from the damage.                                          
               In a second ruling, however, the 1972 ruling was revoked.              
          See Rev. Rul. 80-175, 1980-2 C.B. 230.  The 1980 ruling permitted           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011